DC ERAP Eviction Stay Rule 2025: One Per Case

D.C. Law 26-20, the Emergency Rental Assistance Program Reform Amendment Act of 2025, added a new subsection to the Rental Housing Act framework: D.C. Official Code section 42-3505.01(r). That subsection covers two related but distinct mechanisms, one for the court and one for the housing provider, each triggered at a different stage of a nonpayment case.

[Cite: D.C. Law 26-20, adding D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)]

The first mechanism gives a judge authority, not an obligation. The statute states that the court "may stay any proceeding adjudicating a claim brought by a housing provider to recover possession of a rental unit for nonpayment of rent" once a tenant submits documentation showing a pending ERAP application.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(1)]

That word choice is deliberate and consequential. A tenant producing proof of a pending application doesn't automatically pause the case; it gives the judge the option to do so. A court weighing other factors in a specific case, the length of time the application has been pending, for instance, or the overall posture of the litigation, retains discretion to deny the stay even where the documentation itself is in order.

The same subsection caps how many times this discretionary stay can be used in a single case: only once during the pendency of that proceeding. If a tenant's first ERAP application is denied, and they submit a new one, or if the same application is later updated with new documentation, that doesn't reset the count. One case, one stay, is the operative limit written into the statute.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(1)]

For a tenant, this means timing when to invoke the stay actually matters. Requesting it too early in a case, before the strongest documentation is available, could mean there's no second opportunity to use it later if circumstances change. For a housing provider, it means a case that has already had a stay granted under this provision shouldn't be expected to face a second one on the same basis, regardless of what new ERAP-related paperwork the tenant produces afterward.

The stay provision is triggered by documentation of a pending application, not an approved one. A tenant doesn't need to show the application has been granted, or even that a decision is imminent, only that an application exists and remains under review. That's a meaningfully lower bar than what triggers the second mechanism described below.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(1)]

The stay provision is scoped narrowly by its own language: it applies to a proceeding adjudicating a claim for possession based on nonpayment of rent. An eviction case built on a different basis, a lease violation unrelated to rent, unauthorized occupants, or property damage, for instance, doesn't fall within this stay mechanism, regardless of whether the tenant also happens to have a pending ERAP application.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(1)]

This is the part of the law that's easy to conflate with the stay provision above, but it works on a different trigger, at a different case stage, with a different legal standard. Once a court has already authorized an eviction based solely on nonpayment of rent, and the tenant notifies the housing provider, no later than 48 hours before the scheduled eviction date and time, that they have an approved ERAP application covering the full amount necessary to redeem the tenancy, the housing provider shall cancel the eviction.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(3)]

The statute uses "shall," not "may," here. Unlike the court's discretionary stay earlier in the case, this is a mandatory obligation on the housing provider once the specific conditions, an authorized eviction, a 48-hour notice window, and an approved application covering the full redemption amount, are all met.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(3)]

The earlier court-stay mechanism only requires documentation of a pending application. This later mechanism requires something stronger: an approved application, and specifically one that covers the full amount necessary to redeem the tenancy, not a partial award or an application still awaiting a funding decision. A tenant relying on this provision needs the ERAP determination itself in hand, not just proof that a request was submitted.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(3)]

That distinction matters practically. A tenant whose application is still pending at the point an eviction has already been authorized and scheduled can't invoke this specific cancellation requirement; that tenant would have needed to rely on the earlier discretionary stay, if it hadn't already been used, or otherwise wait for the ERAP decision to actually come through before the scheduled date.

If the housing provider cancels the eviction under this provision and later decides to reschedule it, the statute sets a floor on how soon that can happen: no sooner than 3 weeks from the date the eviction was originally scheduled for.

[Cite: D.C. Official Code § 42-3505.01(r)(3)]

That 3-week minimum gives the tenant a defined runway, whether that's to finalize the ERAP payment process, address any remaining balance, or otherwise resolve the underlying nonpayment issue, rather than facing an eviction rescheduled for the very next available date.

It's easy to read this law as one blanket "ERAP protects you from eviction" rule, but the statute actually creates two mechanisms that operate independently, at different points in a case, with different triggers and different legal force. The court's stay is discretionary, requires only a pending application, is capped at one use per case, and applies during active litigation. The cancellation requirement is mandatory, requires an approved application covering the full redemption amount, has no stated cap on how many times it can apply, and is triggered only after a court has already authorized the eviction.

[Cite: D.C. Law 26-20]

A tenant or advocate relying on this law needs to know which mechanism applies to their case's current stage; conflating the two, assuming a pending application alone guarantees a mandatory cancellation once an eviction date is set, for instance, would be a meaningful misreading of what the statute actually requires.

The practical starting point is training staff who handle scheduled evictions to recognize the specific trigger for the mandatory cancellation requirement: a tenant notification, at least 48 hours out, of an approved ERAP application covering the full redemption amount. That's a narrower and more specific condition than any mention of ERAP generally, and confirming the application is actually approved, not merely submitted, is part of what determines whether cancellation is legally required.

Building the 3-week rescheduling minimum into whatever calendar or case-management process tracks eviction dates prevents an inadvertent violation if a case is rescheduled too soon after a cancellation under this provision. And since the court's discretionary stay can only be granted once per case, a housing provider whose case already had a stay granted on ERAP grounds shouldn't expect that basis to justify a second one, though the court retains its usual discretion over other aspects of the case.